Jack Ma Agrees to Shrink His Business Empire, Bowing to China Pressure
relayvibes.co
relayvibes.co
https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-mas-ant-group-plans-shr...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/jack-mas-ant-plans-major-revamp...
At least BI wrote their own text, it might contain the same information but the structure and text of the article is original.
Rapidly increasing consumer debt in an economy is not necessarily a good thing as more than demonstrated by subprime debt in the 08 financial crises. If completely unchecked, it is in the interest of a company like Any to keep pushing out loans, and it wouldn't be that they are knowingly doing anything wrong. However it might not be good for the rest of society. I think western media enjoys portraying this whole incident in some sort of nefarious light but I actually think it's a prescient and responsible move.
To which he replied, "Because you can't let a camel herder become President."
Deciding "people can't think for themselves" is a slippery slope. And you've got to be talking about a pretty serious ill to balance those scales. (Take it from a country that had a camel herder for a President for four years...)
The problem is the means. The Western viewpoint is that it smells like the ends don’t justify the means, and China hardly has anything resembling rule of law.
How do we operate in this era? That's up to really smart people in the bowels of Western capitols. But in my own opinion, rule of law or no, I'm not sure going to bat for the likes of Ant is a hill we want to send soldiers to die on as they say. Ant itself was intended to flout the rule of International Law. How do we argue on its behalf in the name of "rule of law"? That squanders what little credibility we do have in China.
Of course it's a bad thing when government can seize property at will without clear legislations, separation of power, checks and balances.
It's a bad omen, it means that Chinese institutions are flawed.
You can be larger than life in China, you just cant be larger than CCP.
Imagine a headline “Zuckerberg Agrees to Shrink His Business Empire, Bowing to US Pressure.” Does that sound like a natural headline a reasonable reporter would write?
1. A quick search with my favorite search engine for "bowing to US pressure" returns many results by a variety of reputable outlets.
2. I don't believe that reporters typically write their own headlines.
They are mostly (or all I could find on the first pages) about other countries or international organizations, so I'd say there is at least some difference.
Intel would have eaten Nvidia and ARM a long time ago if that were not how things worked. Intel has been under 24/7 government pressure for decades. They're not allowed to behave the way Nvidia and AMD are allowed to behave, they're not allowed to acquire companies that some of their competitors are allowed to acquire. Intel has been on its knees bowing to government pressure for decades at this point, with two hands tied behind its back.
One may argue that he decided to stand down and bow to all demands, no arguments. Otherwise, it might have been even worse.
China is not USA. Both have pros and cons.
background info: With the trade war and sanctions on HK, the CCP is running low on currency reserves and is going after private property and ownership. Expect more Chinese billionaires to disappear for a while and happily praise their relinquishment of ownership.
Side track but similar situation in S. Korea: Current Korean administration is also trying to force Jay Lee (Samsung Heir & ex-CEO) to sell a huge chunk of his shares to the government (would force the share prices to tank). Word on the street is Samsung is going to nationalize which would spell disaster for the Korean economy which relies 25% of its GDP on Samsung.
2. private ownership != currency reserves. IF CCP is running low on currency reserves (which they don't at the moment, it was a few years back, since then they strengthened capital control), they can force the companies to pulling money back to the mainland, i.e. pumping up USD reserve and given out CNY to these companies. They don't need ownership. In fact, this happened to Wanda and Hainai Airlines a few years ago, when they invested aggressively overseas, and has since then pulled back the capital (sold these oversea assets) to mainland.
The art of dictatorship is strange, and requires much better understanding than just "evil takes over private ownership".
Also, dictators have no need to own anything (at least domestically). They already have the power, so what do they gain by "owning" something they already control? IMHO, private property/ownership is really only a useful concept when you have to allocate control among legally-equal(ish) peers.
I think a lot of people really only understand their own place in their own society, and a lot of time they end up just projecting that onto some other situation when it doesn't really apply.
There is apparently a movie by the same name about Iraqi art : https://www.journeyman.tv/film/1468/the-art-of-dictatorship ( 2002 )
wow. I can't believe I am reading this on HN.
Do not let your biased associations drive the meaning of a concept. Dictatorship, democracy, communism, capitalism and socialism are not inherently good or bad and they are not "teams" you should join or support. They are concepts that have examples of success and failure when executed in the real world.
Sometimes the sheer ignorance on display here is appalling. Honestly.
You're ignorant. See sources below that claim god is basically king:
https://blog.faithlife.com/blog/2019/10/10-bible-verses-that...
https://www.openbible.info/topics/god_king
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/god/god-is-the-king-of-glo...
https://www.cbcpierre.org/sermonsnew/God-is-King
http://thebibleboy.com/bible-commentary/attributes-of-god-pa...
https://thirdmill.org/seminary/lesson.asp/vid/135
King is basically the same thing as dictator FYI. If you don't want to call it fascism, call it a monarchy. It's just words for essentially the same thing.
Even if one were to assume your ignorant argument is true, it’s also not really relevant. The fact that God is a “King” doesn’t somehow confer the same properties onto human kings or governments. Again, basic theology 101 here.
These are quite interesting topics but the level of discussion (exemplified by your remarks here) is often at such a low level, it’s kind of embarrassing, honestly.
And you clearly don't know my background. I may be atheist now but I wasn't in the past. Also there is no need to disparage an entire demographic as you just did to atheists. I have said nothing negative or insulting about Christians, so I humbly request you do the same. Either way we're not debating the validity of your religion here, we are discussing a specific point.
>Even if one were to assume your ignorant argument is true, it’s also not really relevant. The fact that God is a “King” doesn’t somehow confer the same properties onto human kings or governments. Again, basic theology 101 here.
And how is this statement relevant? Did I say God being "king" confers the same properties onto human kings? No I didn't. Again, basic English 101 here, if I didn't say something no need to argue against it.
What I did say is god is an example of a dictatorship because it fits the definition of the word.
https://www.wordreference.com/definition/dictatorship
Colloquially, as referenced in the source above, the definition of the non-government usage of the word "dictatorship" is "absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control" which is an apt description of Gods dominion over reality.
>These are quite interesting topics but the level of discussion (exemplified by your remarks here) is often at such a low level, it’s kind of embarrassing, honestly.
One thing that's not very christian is to insult others and to call them "embarrassing." You've been calling me ignorant throughout this conversation. It's obviously done for the purposes of being insulting because in normal human interactions nobody will disparage another party for being stupid, embarrassing or ignorant even if they believe those qualities are true. From this logic it can only be concluded that your remarks are actually deliberate and targeted insults. Very unchristian-like, given that I've only called you "ignorant" as a retaliation. The christian thing for you to do is to apologize.
“And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. You have heard that it is said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
Matthew 5:40-43 ESV
Given that I've done nothing to take advantage of you, the proverb above is an even greater reason why you should walk two miles with me and to stop with the deliberate insults. You are obligated to continue the discussion in a way that is more christian-like.
>None of what you said or linked to is the mainstream or even acceptable fringe of Christian thought.
What I did to get those resources is I googled "God is king" then I randomly selected sources from the top results. So basically what happened here is google's selection algorithm (which conventionally chooses the most popular results) obviously is buggy and delivered me many fringe results along with mainstream ones. This along with my random selection of sources by happenstance also avoided results that were mainstream. I'm serious, this is categorically a possibility and is, according to your observations, unequivocally what occurred here.
What will be definitive and completely possible is you finding me the same amount of sources from better mainstream christian sources to prove your point. Logically if what you say is true, your sources should be easier to find then how I found mine. Obviously you should avoid google, as the algorithm is buggy. I suggest you use duck duck go and some other search term that will get you what you want.
Also I would say 5 different sources citing your point, along with the search term and the search engine you used to find those sources will help me verify how mainstream your point is, because clearly it is unlikely for both google and another search engine to both be buggy and by happenstance deliver fringe results.
In short, your point here is that god is not a "king" or a "dictator" even though the bible has a quote directly saying he is "king". It's quite possible that mainstream christian thought has come up with some other symbolic definition of the word "king" to make the religion more compatible with modern society. I however have not seen ANY sources for that possibility but you are claiming that not only have you seen resources for it, it is mainstream christian belief. Prove it then.
Now that I laid it all out... give me your sources or give me your excuses. Choose.
And again, God is not a dictator because a dictator is a human concept derived from the Roman republic. The comparison to religious entities is nonsensical. As I’ve said a few times now, anyone with basic knowledge of theology would know this. You can’t expect to google something and get a clear, understandable answer in five minutes. It doesn’t work that way with something as all-permeating as the influence and definition of religion. There are literally thousands of scholars that have written books on these topics.
I said "vocal atheists" above because this is a common habit of that community: the assumption that if something can't be argued for by assembling a bunch of google results, it must clearly be nonsense. Sorry, but reality doesn't work that way.
Finally, I’m not a Christian and never have been. I just find the constant ignorance of religion to be tiresome. Anyone who had spent considerable time studying Christianity or other religions would immediately recognize that you have a very confused understanding of them both. My initial comment was just calling you out for it.
I suggest starting here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
Whether the result is derived from 10,000 hours of research or 5 minutes of googling is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the veracity of the main point.
For example if I google the statistics about the population within the united states, I receive the result in seconds, the speed in which I found the results has nothing to do with the accuracy of the results.
The method to prove sources wrong is to offer counter sources. Not to declare it invalid because it came from google.
> especially considering that a majority of Christians look more to the church or to tradition than the Bible itself.
When people refer to Christians they don't refer to the bible or some religious document they refer to the people representing the religion as a whole, aka "the majority of Christians." Such was what I was referring to. Thus by your own logic are you admitting that the "majority of Christians" believe god is king/dictator? If so there is no validity in calling me ignorant as you are specifically slicing the definition of christian to refer to a specific interpretation of the bible.
>And again, God is not a dictator because a dictator is a human concept derived from the Roman republic.
How does the etymology of a word have to do with anything? The arena for this discussion is not an anthropology or linguistics class, the arena of discussion is the internet therefore only the colloquial definition of "dictator" applies. Again I googled a source and cited it as the definition of the word "dictator" and that definition applies to my point.
>I said "vocal atheists" above because this is a common habit of that community: the assumption that if something can't be argued for by assembling a bunch of google results, it must clearly be nonsense.
This is an insult to an entire demographic of people with differing beliefs. Why? Because no reasonable person believes that being unable to assemble an argument in 5 minutes means that the argument is invalid. Any reasonable person knows this. Therefore, for you to declare this as true for an entire demographic is an deliberate and targeted insult. Very unchristian like.
If you can't assemble an argument using google results then that simply means you can't construct an argument given the time frame and context and that you have failed to convince me and anyone reading this about the validity of your arguments. It doesn't mean your argument is not true, nobody on earth believes this. We all know that every argument is subject to disproof at any time. There is no need do disparage an entire demographic just because you can't articulate your argument at this point in time.
>Finally, I’m not a Christian and never have been. I just find the constant ignorance of religion to be tiresome. Anyone who had spent considerable time studying Christianity or other religions would immediately recognize that you have a very confused understanding of them both. My initial comment was just calling you out for it.
You're obviously not an atheist. Given these statements, my guess is that you're either part of some other Judaic sect or you just believe in your own interpretation of the bible. What you are and your interpretation of the bible is irrelevant because my comment was directed at "the majority of Christians." Your argument seems to be coming from a different angle that is off topic.
Also you cite a bunch of sources from the Standford encyclopedia of philosophy. I would argue that the Standford encyclopedia of philosophy is a bad source for the topic at hand. Standford is an academic institution where many researchers tend to believe in the scientific method over the faith based tenets of Christians. Such contradictory tenets make it a shaky source. When asking the question: What do the "majority of Christians" believe in? .... the academic institution of Stanford is a biased source. Instead of asking Stanford, it's better to directly ask "the majority of Christians" instead.
Additionally philosophy is sort of an objective look at the religion and trying to codify all the concepts, contradictions and connections into universal vocabulary. This is not the point of my argument. The point of my example is what people in the world actually believe. And It very much looks like "The Majority of Christians" believe god is king.
Your best bet here to convince me and other people reading is to find some document that examines the definition of the word "king" and "lord" within this proverb:
"He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. . . . On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords."
-Revelation 19:13, 16
Basically if you can prove that Christianity reinterprets the word "lord" and "king" to mean something other than the colloquial definition of the term "dictatorship" and that the "majority of Christians" believe that definition then you're right.
Religion and many human mythological beliefs are not immune to contradiction so arguing for some contradictory theological concept won't exactly prove anything if you still have millions of Christians chanting "God is king" at church every Sunday. Christians can believe god is a dictator at the same time they can also believe in freewill, such is the fallacy of human thinking. But don't all dictators grant their subjects free will anyway? "You're free to oppose me but then I'll execute you (make you burn in hell)."
If you fail to respond with anything substantial it could be because of what you said: It's not your job to do research for me or other readers of HN. Other readers of HN and I will of course consider this as a possibility, but of course we will also consider the possibility that you can't find anything substantial because you know you're wrong.
> "the majority of Christians."
There is no such thing, especially for a complex theological issue like free will. The Catholic Church, major Protestant sects, and the Eastern Orthodox church all have different views.
> Basically if you can prove that Christianity reinterprets the word "lord" and "king" to mean something other than the colloquial definition of the term "dictatorship" and that the "majority of Christians" believe that definition then you're right.
Yes, that is not the case, again, for basic theological reasons. For one, the relationship of Christians to secular power has been a complex one.
On the one hand, you have Jesus saying "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." On the other you have the divine right of kings, which argues for the opposite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Christianity
I'm sorry, but again, this is a complex theological question that many Christian thinkers have weighed in on over the years. It's really not the kind of issue one can solve in a HN comment and your constant "if you don't prove it now, you're wrong" is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. It isn't that simple.
I don't have much else to say. Religion is complicated and not easily summarized in "But do X people think Y?"
Now reading your response you seem to be saying rather then the “majority” of Christians believing that god is a dictator, instead a good number of Christians believe it and a good number of Christians don’t believe it. This makes your initial statement of me being ignorant quite disingenuous as a good number of Christians agree with my statement. You could’ve just stated that the issue was controversial rather then call ignorance on me and basically all Christians who share that viewpoint.
> I'm sorry, but again, this is a complex theological question that many Christian thinkers have weighed in on over the years. It's really not the kind of issue one can solve in a HN comment and your constant "if you don't prove it now, you're wrong" is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. It isn't that simple.
Why are you apologizing all the time? What are you sorry for? A complex theological issue doesn’t exclude it from being discussed on HN. There’s no rule excluding complex subjects from being discussed, in fact I would argue the theme of HN is complex technical topics.
Also you just brought up “ignorance” and associated with the words “if you don’t prove it now, you’re wrong.” This is ironic because it displays ignorance and shows you didn’t read my previous reply where I literally say it doesn’t mean you’re wrong it just means you failed to prove that you’re not wrong. The possibility of being right remains but you have just failed to show anything at this point in time.
Now to address your Wikipedia links (which is another dubious source along the lines of “googling things” by your own misguided reasoning). “Render unto Caesar” and “Divine right of kings” are just referring to human kings it does not elucidate the meaning of the word “king” or “lord” when applied to god. The “Names of God in Christianity” article is actually referring to the name of “god” not his “title,” similar to how “Mr. President” is not Biden’s name. The main point here is “what is God’s title?” in the context of “god is king,” and therefore since none of these links are referring to that topic, all these links are off topic.
Overall you haven’t found any references to an opposing meaning to the word “king” in “god is king” you have stated the issue is complex meaning that people have opposing views on the matter. Either way, It’s a safe bet that in the context of the proverb, the colloquial definition is the most likely definition given the absence of other interpretations.
I think your use of the word “complex” hides some systemic issues here. The complexity of an issue doesn’t preclude a yes or no answer. If god existed and if we asked him whether or not he was a dictator he would give us a yes or no answer because the query was a yes or no question. In essence the argument boils down to what “people” think gods answer to this question will be, this is where obscurity, conflict and lack of information creates artificial complexity, so we have to deal with fuzzy probabilities.
I have shown you plenty of sources of Christians who do think the words “king” imply “dictator” you have failed to even show me one Christian who has an opposing view point. The probabilities lean in favor of me, but the complexity still remains. You still have opportunity show me a single Christian who defines the word “king” in “god is king” as something other then “dictator.” You can even show me an interpretation of that word where the viewer calls it controversial. As long as no other viewpoint exists the colloquial definition of the word “king” is the most likely and reasonable meaning at this point in time.
This does not make you wrong. Under the scientific method anything is subject to disproof at anytime and nothing can be proven in actuality. The “complexities” you describe are an intrinsic part of reality and every topic in existence is subject to differing interpretations. Therefore a “winner” in any debate is the only the person that produces the most probable answer because definitive answers don’t exist in reality.
In this case the most probabl answer is the answer with the most evidence or sources.
Again, given your lack of evidence the colloquial definition of the word “king” in “god is king” is the most likely the answer god would give himself. I acknowledge the possibility of controversy but such evidence has not been presented yet.
Complexity is a well used debate tactic and much of it has been used in defense of cigarettes and global warming to make the core issues less evident. You may have a feeling that I’m wrong but until you can cut through the complexity and delve into core issues here I feel you are just unconsciously using complexity as a defense tactic because you yourself are unable to fully decode and categorize the branches within this topic. There’s an easy way to identify if this in fact what you are unconsciously doing.
There is a finite set of viewpoints on a topic and if you can’t label the total amount of viewpoints with an actual number it means that you yourself have a fuzzy view of the topic. Try it... what are all the possible academic viewpoints on what it means for god to be king? In your lifetime the amount of opinions you’ve encountered should be countable, ballpark 10 at most and 3 on average.
Maybe use Singapore's 'benevolent dictator' as your example?
I could use a real world example like Singapore but there are imperfections in that country. God is an example of a perfect dictatorship in every possible conceivable way, it's even better than democracy.
In order to become Christian, I had to choose to accept God as my Dictator.
Later, I gave up the notion of God and Christianity, again by choice.
It's like putting yourself in a prison where you can leave any time you like. Are you still in prison? Likewise, is God really a dictator?
Except your spiritual boss will only accept 100% and not some time sharing agreement, and that you must do so on faith, surrendering everything. Or you go to hell.
It's refreshing. Yes, the CCP is not about evil - and the top comment nailed it: Ma was encouraging change that was too fast and potentially damaging.
China has being doing great, following a path that the West disapprove. Maybe the West should give the benefit of doubt, giving the track record of success in real world execution.
China is doing a typical catch up development due to low base/high labour supply. USSR did this during Stalin's ruling, many others did so as well.
There is nothing unique or spectacular here. China is still a dirt poor country with GDP per capita at 15% of that of the US.
When they will become closer to developed nations' economic level, they'll need more sophisticated institutions, rule of law, or they would face a middle income trap.
For now they can grow by simply utilizing their large factors of production, even dictatorship can do this.
What has a occurred in China is an economic miracle that has never been seen in the history of human civilization. This does not mean china is perfect. Far from it.
It is very very inaccurate to label it as "nothing unique or spectacular."